Mary Queen of Diversity

Having just watched Mary Queen of Scots, I am forced to conclude that it is perhaps the most extreme example yet of the bogus diversification of history on screen. You could say that maybe King Arthur and his Posse of the Round Table was worse. But the King Arthur story is basically a fable anyway, so adding a few more layers of fantasy to it doesn’t seem quite as bad. Mary Queen of Scots adheres broadly to the facts of history, which makes its crazy additions of random diversity seem all the more galling.

Diversity punches in the face from the first minute of the film. As Mary Queen of Scots walks to her execution spot, a negro stands leering at her side.

The next minute, the story skips back to Mary’s landing in Scotland from France and Diversity knees us in the groin as we see that she has a brown-skinned handmaiden with her.

After that its back to England and Diversity headbutts us unconscious to the ground as it seems one of the top bods at Elizabeth’s court was a negro.

This negro even acts as Elizabeth’s ambassador to Scotland. Soon he is flirting with Mary and fondling one of her female companions.

All of this is especially absurd in that Elizabeth is known to have issued warrants for negroes to be removed from the country.

Her Majestie understanding that there are of late divers
blackmoores brought into this realme, of which kindeof people there are allready here to manie, consideringe
howe God hath blessed this land with great increase of
people of our owne nation as anie countrie in the world,
whereof manie for want of service and meanes to sett them
on worck fall to idlenesse and to great extremytie. HerMajesty’s pleasure therefore ys that those kinde of peopleshould be sent forth of the lande, and for that purpose
there ys direction given to this bearer Edwarde Banes to
take of those blackmoores that in this last voyage under
Sir Thomas Baskervile were brought into this realme the
nomber of tenn, to be transported by him out of the realme.
Wherein wee require you to be aydinge and assysting unto
him as he shall have occacion, and thereof not to faile.

But in this movie Diversity isn’t content with just beating us unconscious to the ground. It insists on kicking us in the head while we’re there.

Which is to say that racial diversity isn’t enough for this movie. It has gay sex scenes and a tranny too.

The tranny in question is David Rizzio, an actual historical figure who, in real life, was Italian. But here the role is played by a Puerto Rican actor with obviously non-European features.

“We know that the characters that Gemma and Adria and Ismael Cruz Cordova [play] were white,” Rourke told Refinery29. “So those are people of colour playing those who were historically not people of colour.”

Rourke added, “That is very influenced by my theatre background, where that sort of thing is done. When I sat down with [the studio] early, before we got down to a lot of stuff, I said to them, ‘Just so you know, I’m not doing to direct an all-white period drama. That’s not something I’m going to do.’ And they were really hugely supportive of that.”

No, it’s not Boris Johnson. This is the elegant Miranda Kaufmann, playing rugby.

Rourke said she was influenced by the book “Black Tudors” written by the Jewess Miranda Kaufmann. which in typical Jewish fashion, tries to sell the idea that the presence of 200 or 300 blacks in 16th century England somehow marks the country out as diverse, with the unspoken but obviously intended implication that Goyim attempts to assert an ancestral identity are therefore absurd; that only the Jews have a true genetic essence, with the self-proclaimed peoplehood of the Unchosen being nothing but a socially-constructed artefact, frangible and ready to fall apart upon the first application of Jewish critique. Hahaha, Goyim, you don’t really exist!

Kaufmann, desperately but unsuccessfully, attempts to trivialize the “negars and blackamoores” letters in the Elizabethan archives. She triumphantly makes petty, but ultimately irrelevant points, viz. that the “negars and blackamoores” were to be transported by a specific Dutch merchant who had rendered some service to the crown; that he may have been a spy; that masters refused to give up their negroes to be transported; that the letter may not have been publicly proclaimed (irrelevant, as most open warrants were not).

None of this matters. The significance of the letters is in their indication of the general contempt in which negroes were held. ” of which kinde of people there are allready here to manie”, “and like Christians rather to be served by their owne contrymen then with those kinde of people”.

If you wonder why film-makers are so eager to seize on the specious history served up by the Kaufmanns (Merchants) of this world, then wonder no more. In Britain, most film projects receive public subsidy. Since 2014, the agency awarding these funds has required film-makers to show a “commitment to diversity”. I predicted at the time that this would quickly lead to a Sovietesque propaganda cinema, and I was absolutely right.

And the brown people are relishing their racial appropriation of our history. Gemma Chan, who plays a slant-eyed handmaiden to Elizabeth, exults in it.

Chan, who earlier this year appeared in Crazy Rich Asians,told Marie Claire last week that she never would have expected to end up in a move like Mary Queen of Scots. “I was warned when I left drama school that a lot of the U.K.’s film and TV output is period drama, and there was absolutely no way [I’d get roles]” she said. She compared the movie to Broadway’s Hamilton: “I think Hamilton was described as ‘America then’ played by ‘America now.’ This is ‘England then’ portrayed by ‘England now.’ It’s about time.”

I don’t think England is that far gone, dear, and Scotland certainly isn’t.

Assuming patriotic governments come to power in future, we should consider passing laws regulating the historical accuracy of period dramas. Hit them where it hurts: the cash register. Ban the sale or transmission of racially anachronistic movies, or require special permission for them, and they will soon stop making them.

Share this:

Like this:

Related

19 thoughts on “Mary Queen of Diversity”

‘Whereas the Queen’s majesty, tendering the good and welfare of her own natural subjects, greatly distressed in these hard times of dearth, is highly discontented to understand the great number of Negroes and blackamoors which (as she is informed) are carried into this realm since the troubles between her highness and the King of Spain; who are fostered and powered here, to the great annoyance of her own liege people that which co[vet?] the relief which these people consume, as also for that the most of them are infidels having no understanding of Christ or his Gospel: hath given a special commandment that the said kind of people shall be with all speed avoided and discharged out of this her majesty’s realms.’—Elizabeth I, 1601

‘Everyone is our neighbour, no matter what race, creed or colour. The need to look after a fellow human being is far more important than any cultural or religious differences…There is certainly much more to be done and many challenges to be overcome. Discrimination still exists. Some people feel that their own beliefs are being threatened. Some are unhappy about unfamiliar cultures. They all need to be reassured that there is so much to be gained by reaching out to others; that diversity is indeed a strength and not a threat.’—Elizabeth II, 2004

Yes, Elizabeth I was a true sovereign; Elizabeth II is more than merely an embarrassment: she is a traitor to that line of statesmen-monarchs who reigned in a once great kingdom and to the English people.

I noticed something similar in what I think was the movie ‘Braveheart’. I didn’t think much of it then, as it was a trend still yet to really take off, but negroe extras were sitting around-I have no idea what or who they were portraying, but they stood out and looked rather odd. You’d think Mel Gibson of all people would know better.
The only people in Britain around that time would have been the descendants of Celts, Vikings, Anglo Saxens, Iberians and Normans-meaning European….and every cast member in these movies should reflect that.
The moment an historical inaccuracy is spotted, it immediately wrecks the movie.

I never noticed that. I will watch it again and look for it. It’s theoretically possible that there could have been some negro leftovers from Roman armies still kicking around the gene pool, but you would expect it to have been diluted away by then.

As far as I am aware only two skulls/skeletons have been found (so far) relating to Black Africans – during the Roman occupation of Brittania: one in the south east and the other, at or near Vindolanda! When they refer to “African” legionnaires in Romano Britain, they are more likely referring to “Genetically/Culturally” White North Africans – I.e those of Carthaginian/Libyan descent not sub-Saharan Black Africans! Any Black genetic legacy would have been microscopic to say the least!

I didn’t notice it all at the time. It’s funny how glaringly obvious it is now when they pepper historical movies with non-White extras. I believe they have a film classification for that–historical FICTION. It’s so bad with some films that it’s to the point where I don’t even watch the principle actors but stay focused on the background action in every scene to spot the anachronistic non-Whites that should never even be in the film. It’s kind of like the Where’s Waldo puzzle. Spotting every non-White lurking in the crowed scenes of historical dramas would make a great drinking game, I imagine, because there are so many. Of course, they’re not even hiding them now. They’re casting them in some of the lead roles.

Although Braveheart is historically “flawed” it is still pretty epic and I do not remember “Negro” extras and I have the film on dvd! Perhaps you are right though and it could possibly be on a special edition or Blu-ray? As for Mary Queen of Scots – it is almost as bad as Robin Hood origins, which featured a black Merlin and a black Friar Tuck (Jamie Foxx) – crazy!

I believe there was a Broadway play back in the 80’s called Bent that specifically focused on the alleged gays in the labor camps. I think it was turned into a movie that bombed. The play is almost never performed and the movie was never remade for the obvious reasons; it would syphon off sympathy for Jews as the primary victims of the alleged holocaust, and they don’t share the spotlight with anyone.

whites play other ethnics = bad,
other ethnics play whites = good,
whites colonize other ethnic lands = bad,
other ethnics swarm white lands = good,
ya see a pattern? with jews you lose, every single time.

on a side note, rabbis claiming their messiah is alive today in 2019 and will be made known to the world before the elections in israel this year oi vey,

Anyone who both has experience with Blacks and watches this show will know that any Black in the deodorant-free Middle Ages would have cleared out a room with the smell.

Everyone was likely a bit pungent then, but no European White would have put up with what would have emanated from any Black person for more than a moment.

If you don’t believe me, try going into a smaller room without ventilation with a group of Black people who have deodorant on. Or walking behind a young Black man in the summer heat. Historical lies can never change biological truth.